The Potential Role of ADR in the Context of Access and Benefit Sharing Over Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Choice Ubangha
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing

scholarly journals The Nagoya Protocol and Indigenous Peoples

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Yolanda Teran
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Mother Earth

This article is about Indigenous peoples’ involvement in the Nagoya Protocol negotiations from 2006 to 2010, as well as in its implementation to stop biopiracy in order to protect Pachamama, Mother Earth, and to ensure our survival and the survival of coming generations. The Nagoya Protocol is an international instrument that was adopted in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010 by the Conference of Parties (COP 10) and ratified by 51 countries in Pyeongchang, South Korea in October 2014 at COP 12. This protocol governs access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization (access and benefit sharing [ABS]). It has several articles related to Indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge, as well as: The interrelation and inseparable nature between genetic resources and traditional knowledge; The diversity of circumstances surrounding traditional knowledge ownership, including by country; The identification of traditional knowledge owners; The declaration of Indigenous peoples' human rights; and The role of women in the biodiversity process. In addition, this protocol lays out obligations on access, specifically participation in equitable benefit sharing, the accomplishment of prior and informed consent, and the mutually agreed terms and elaboration of a national legal ABS framework with the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities in order to have well-defined roles, responsibilities, and times of negotiations.

scholarly journals ‘Poisoned Chalice’: Law on Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge in Namibia

Resources ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Wana W. Chinsembu ◽  
Kazhila C. Chinsembu
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Green Economy ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Commercial Research

Many countries in Africa provide ethnobiological resources (more especially ethnomedicinal plants), which are converted by companies and users from developed countries into biopharmaceutical products without any monetary benefits to the countries of origin. To mitigate the lack of benefits, African countries are beginning to enact access and benefit-sharing (ABS) legislation, though their wheels turn very slowly. Since many African ABS laws have not been appraised for their feasibility, this paper presents a contextual analysis of Namibia’s new ABS law: The Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge Act No. 2 of 27 June 2017. Even if several international conventions on ABS and local institutional structures guided the evolution of the 2017 Act, the main drivers for the enactment of the ABS legislation in Namibia are: Inequitable sharing of monetary benefits from the green economy, putative, but unproven cases of biopiracy, and political power contestations over ethnobiological resources. A critical analysis of important challenges faced by Namibia’s new ABS law include: Lack of adequate participatory consultations and technical capacity at the local level, discount of the non-commodity cultural value of TK, ambiguous and narrow definition of the term ‘community’, lack of a clause on confidentiality, and assertions that the new ABS law negatively impacts research in Namibian universities and botanic gardens. In contrast to South Africa’s ABS law, Namibia’s law is more onerous because it does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial research.

scholarly journals Implementing ABS Regime in Nepal through Community Based Biodiversity Management Framework

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 148-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bikash Poudel ◽  
Pitamber Shrestha ◽  
Bir Bahadur Tamang ◽  
Abiskar Subedi
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
In Situ Conservation ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Biodiversity Management ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Management Framework ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Agriculture And Environment ◽  
Set Up

It is very evident that there is lack of well accepted and verified mechanisms as well as institutional set up for the realization of farmers' rights, including the effective implementation of International Regime on Access to and Benefit Sharing (IRABS). Community Biodiversity Management (CBM) embed good practices, proven to be effective in in-situ conservation of biodiversity through conservation through use, they also provide a base for a range of practices which serve the basis for IRABS to be affable and affordable to local communities. CBM encompasses the good practices serving documentation, conservation, facilitating exchange, providing access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Moreover, CBM also provide institutional structure and mechanism to share the benefits accruing from commercial use of the genetic resources, directly and indirectly.Key words: Genetic resources; Associated traditional knowledge; Access and benefit sharing; farmers’ rights; Community biodiversity managementThe Journal of AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT Vol. 11, 2010Page: 148-157Uploaded date: 16 September, 2010

Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Resulting from their Use – The Challenges of a New Concept

elni Review ◽  
2008 ◽  
pp. 12-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susette Biber-Klemm
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Prior Informed Consent ◽  
Equitable Sharing ◽  
Insight Into

The system of access and benefit sharing (ABS) – or more technically worded “Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits resulting from their utilisation” – is one of the most debated topics in the field of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Explained in a nutshell, the system institutionalises, on the basis of the national sovereignty over natural resources, conditions for access to and utilisation of genetic resources and – indirectly – also to traditional knowledge related to these genetic resources. It prescribes the well-known triad of Prior Informed Consent (PIC), Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT) and the benefit sharing. This article presents some of the current debates in more detail. In order to facilitate insight into the challenges of the system, the background and context of its evolution are described and analysed.

scholarly journals Assessment of Domestic Policies Guiding the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits From Utilization of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Hasrat Arjjumend ◽  
Konstantia Koutouki
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol

The objective of the Nagoya Protocol guides Parties to regulate illegitimate access and utilization of biological resources or associated traditional knowledge, and also directs Parties to share with fairness, equity and justice the monetary or non-monetary benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources. In a nod to the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People, the Nagoya Protocol binds the Parties to create access and benefit sharing (ABS) laws, policies or administrative measures as envisaged in Articles 5.2 and 5.5 of the Protocol, and obliges the States to allow for benefits to flow to Indigenous peoples and local communities (ILCs). Present paper is based on an opinion survey of academic/research institutions, civil society organizations and concerned individuals apart from competent national authorities of Asian countries. Review of secondary information, especially domestic ABS laws of relevant countries, and participant observation were other means of legal and policy analysis. The findings of this paper illustrate that the accrued benefits from the utilization of genetic resources or traditional knowledge are not adequately realized by Indigenous people or local communities. State sovereignty occupies dominance when justice and equity principles are considered in benefit sharing mechanism. It leads to the infringement of Indigenous rights and conservation objectives. Discrepancies in domestic ABS laws and in the frameworks for their implementation could be addressed by ensuring the participation of ILCs in domestic ABS rulemaking, decision-making processes, and the participatory execution of ABS mechanisms at all levels. The resulting gains in efficiency in the ABS process could then better achieve the goal of conserving and sustainably using biodiversity, while also ensuring respect for the rights of Indigenous people.

The Inadequacies of the French System Regarding Access and Benefit-sharing and Its Evolution through the Recognition of the Notion of Local Community in the Nagoya Protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-90
Author(s):  
Pierre-Alain Collot
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Resources ◽  
Traditional Knowledge ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Benefit Sharing ◽  
Access And Benefit Sharing ◽  
Nagoya Protocol ◽  
Community Or ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

The French law for the reconquest of biodiversity aims to transpose the Nagoya Protocol into national law. Rather than supporting the notion of an autochthonous and local community or even taking into account the autochthonous character of the concept of a local community, the legislature has chosen to use the notion of a community of inhabitants. The notion of local community, which is specific to environmental law, nevertheless satisfies the requirements of constitutional jurisprudence, as it does not consist of a community of origin, culture, language or belief. Beyond the logic inherent in the Law of 8 August 2016, the recognition of local communities, which is at the heart of the mechanism for sharing access and benefits, could make it possible to correct the multiple shortcomings, in terms of access to both genetic resources and traditional knowledge, associated with the sharing of the benefits that result from their use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document